AgentBench / results
← All models

Ling 3.0 Tiny Q4_0

1 tested weight format · Explore results, then inspect the answers.

Choose a tested configuration

Get this tested model

Q4_0 · 4.62 GB download

Links follow the selected quant and configuration.

Setup, memory & provenance · Q4_0

Q4_0 · 4.62 GB of weights · vulkan · context 16384 · GPU layers 99

Medium · 5–under 20B · MoE · 7.9B total · Active parameter count not recorded

Memory fit has not been verified for this configuration.

completed

Recorded settings and thinking verification

Temperature 0 · seed 42 · output limit 4096 · reasoning effort unrecorded

RAM labels describe the test computer, not this model’s memory requirement. Speed comparisons keep the 32 GB and 128 GB runs separate.

Runtime build: unrecorded · Local · test machine with 32 GB RAM · concurrency: 1

Thinking status: verified · probe 1 · scope Saved profile-level probe; exact historical template/build scope is not fully recorded..

Requested off does not prove an absence of reasoning. Saved checks do not establish unrecorded historical template or build details.

Overall across tasks

56.2 / 100

Nine categories, equally weighted · 9/9 eligible

Complete coverage for this setup. Quality only; speed is separate. How the index works →

What does it do well?

Select a category to explore the answers. Bars show what happened on every planned task. Incorrect answers and failures to finish both earn zero; technical problems and untested tasks stay unscored.

Exact scores and task times by suite

Each suite has its own metric and fixed task bank. The balanced index weights categories equally; individual scores and evidence remain available below.

Test suiteThinking onDetails
Everyday coding tasksTask pass rate
Pass rate
15/16 · 94%
Answers completed
15/16 · 94%
Correct / completed
15/15 · 100%
15 full credit1 failed to finish
16/16 scored8.4s median task time · 16 measured
Larger practical tasksMean task credit
Average credit
45.5%
Full-credit rate
5/11 · 45%
Answers completed
8/11 · 73%
Full credit / completed
5/8 · 63%
5 full credit3 incorrect3 failed to finish
11/11 scored44.1s median task time · 11 measured
Logic and number puzzlesMean puzzle credit
Average credit
47.9%
Full-credit rate
14/34 · 41%
Answers completed
34/34 · 100%
Full credit / completed
14/34 · 41%
14 full credit6 partial credit14 incorrect
34/34 scored17.3s median task time · 34 measured
Published hard problemsMean answer credit
Average credit
10.9%
Full-credit rate
1/11 · 9%
Answers completed
11/11 · 100%
Full credit / completed
1/11 · 9%
1 full credit2 partial credit8 incorrect
11/11 scored16.9s median task time · 11 measured
Following exact instructions · original campaignStrict prompt compliance
Pass rate
19/23 · 83%
Answers completed
23/23 · 100%
Correct / completed
19/23 · 83%
19 full credit4 incorrect
23/23 scored10.2s median task time · 23 measured
Reading without guessingExact-match accuracy
Pass rate
10/16 · 63%
Answers completed
16/16 · 100%
Correct / completed
10/16 · 63%
10 full credit6 incorrect
16/16 scored1.3s median task time · 16 measured
Calculating from a passageNumeric exact-match accuracy
Pass rate
7/7 · 100%
Answers completed
7/7 · 100%
Correct / completed
7/7 · 100%
7 full credit
7/7 scored1.5s median task time · 7 measured
Reading research papersAnswer token F1
Average credit
12.5%
Full-credit rate
1/8 · 13%
Answers completed
8/8 · 100%
Full credit / completed
1/8 · 13%
1 full credit7 incorrect
8/8 scored5.2s median task time · 8 measured
Resisting incorrect correctionsAll-branches pass rate
Pass rate
6/12 · 50%
Answers completed
12/12 · 100%
Correct / completed
6/12 · 50%
6 full credit6 incorrect
12/12 scored4.0s median task time · 12 measured
Following exact instructions · 128 GB campaignStrict prompt complianceNot planned

Model analysis

This analysis covers this configuration across its recorded thinking conditions and test suites.

Ling 3.0 Tiny Q4_0 is useful for small project edits, but not a dependable choice for broader research or autonomous work. With thinking off, it completed most small coding tasks. Larger practical tasks remained weak even with thinking on. Research-paper answers were especially poor, and handling challenges or updates to source-backed answers was unreliable.

Evidence for this judgment
Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off
Tasks passed15 of 16 (93.8%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Tasks timed16 tasks
Typical time per task (median)5.8 seconds
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Larger practical tasks · Thinking on
Average score45.5/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes5 full credit · 0 partial · 6 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Reading research papers · Thinking on
Average score12.5/100 · Answer token F1
Test coverage8 of 8 tasks scored
Task outcomes1 full credit · 0 partial · 7 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Reading research papers · Thinking off
Average score0.0/100 · Answer token F1
Test coverage8 of 8 tasks scored
Task outcomes0 full credit · 0 partial · 8 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking on
Tasks passed6 of 12 (50.0%)
Test coverage12 of 12 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking off
Tasks passed1 of 12 (8.3%)
Test coverage12 of 12 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Original analysis generated by GPT Astra · · Edited by Codex; agent reviewed by Codex · publication authorized by user

About this summary

Codex reviewed this assessment against a newer evidence edition. The original analyst, generation date and source draft remain recorded separately from the editorial revision.

Analyst provider
openai
Generation route
Codex CLI · codex-cli 0.162.1 · ChatGPT account
Requested model
gpt-6-astra
Returned model
Not supplied; identity is recorded from the request only.
Exact provider snapshot
Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
Reasoning effort
high
Prompt version
model-summary-reader-v6
Generation time
2026-10-12T03:35:53.468464Z
Review time
2026-10-22T07:26:27.170065+00:00
Evidence reviewer
Codex (agent)
Publication authorization
User · 2026-10-22T05:55:43.625712+00:00 · Go ahead and complete the remaining work. Spin up agents: luna, terra, sol, astra, as needed to get it done. Narrative summaries: these are the astra generated summaries? Go ahead and get those completed as well. Once all of this is done, you may push the completed result.
Originating evidence edition
dataset-b1aa28e61ea9ce402d5617e636622c22565093f8849fd66537b5f4353d228521
Analysis input hash
03752d4004a2d57a60874080f4db6ad8d2e956846959deb10fd2296e98ca2efa
Original analysis input hash
d16650e04cf6221a663e3d1e56dc4922b8e83a761c484931e95b747f9b6dd73a
Editorial evidence edition
dataset-5a6f96ec56c3d240cc42fa23147c1495da1be71f3ef0722c0e5f8c4f5e126a83
Original summary
summary-56feb64ea7517ad8a336e6481ff4552e7c051bb4f2f460bfd3106919ee8b301c
Summary revision
summary-1832dd16a34fb02e2962241cd2eef5a1595a180cda5fab253f0b418fa0cc811b

Generation and editorial authorship remain attached to this revision. Changing the default generator does not change this attribution.

Contributing analyses (28)
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    example_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    77187777cea23f45c694998930a5bf6f5c68beff8e82f4c4cd5a47111b2e8426
    Summary revision
    summary-0968f2a0c5b8a7994780c5cc1ad0dd91c8b1187e6198dd0e42a8536cb7ea8856
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    example_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    58a78e6cfe7317983102fe65aa5eec970e156c5be8be190c6835fb0e27732847
    Summary revision
    summary-0a03a7b99182cbc2419f513327342c8da15e4b5c733dcf34418376e7f72bc41e
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    60a447ca7c20b6cab22b723c125152c284788ab022f007eccc3661942c6ec698
    Summary revision
    summary-0fec8e4fbcf7861a5b03e7118af7b3e3a098de97757cd1b825d2a6ad8aff5e05
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    7e554af839744191ab5568f6bd9a7776e122d9a01b74183b0f8a8591fa6b5d44
    Summary revision
    summary-17c5682ba3fd8ef3d82508bf8ede75edc79c8f52bfa23e017cbb4e5fdf858c39
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    fa887ab45dd1dcde41fe5b4d02466f18a5b4ad78c29fe5089b35ea19ddba6ebb
    Summary revision
    summary-1db01574914399037d49d5a8aca872ba411277c1cbd9df97297277a250bb2611
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    f46520cc93c96dd30cad261ef8b1846bf77441c98c509b147edf4b5878cff563
    Summary revision
    summary-2011b1c7c0743bab6259586d2cd73cd131d31201c57dad56f2d88e2d9218571a
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    13cb6c78dfd2aadc86e4fa602b75241230f59c93f9b8e825016ec2f73e34377c
    Summary revision
    summary-25cfd77c54260485f80a3b08375cc5f3572bca67f010747870e9f7b2f7bd51fe
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    example_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    87dd71c1b570655c57062ba011a89742901f544e5130229eb232e5e57463e4e1
    Summary revision
    summary-2f2b2c5e78607242f6b336d8ed16a630e7d43ef67cd13e1168acb43d78031a63
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    164e20a247883f8e5d85e9559ec102733651d4f37705e44c951c9005e7f6e707
    Summary revision
    summary-3b6f603dd65eeef5ef7ba2822a836a307a6322b0264916eae45719772271a696
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    subject_synthesis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    5f25775c8141e953d34ad09cd93b7fc30873ac15237cc2f74647a446d0237326
    Summary revision
    summary-43b1e8d8df16cf6c52e4eda014aad4b5eab95a4920b528a0af391c3c4362f003
    Input summary revisions
    summary-6bbe1c15a9124e9f17e1849c1aabdd0333e266654645467ff9b951a59e43d93e, summary-80857a6a56081a336613ec228d04e6c047fd65552acf854e929fac26635d7d12, summary-8c70302b1e61cb11c601299d92a95de9d9b9452a8caeb54612ca08aa9c5ded6a, summary-8d1b12f34ca0b2a07cc0ad80863e20c8917e065a089cc3f2efdf8cf70aeb9974, summary-9190d3c44572eff5ad1746aaf7af5f6f5df45b1c1937bfe18a5a9dda6f5da35c, summary-d04c9ad583f8be40b8d01afcc5a7544f1b5dc86ff2476ab3c706bb7cc9876b68, summary-d09be054e254dc7da74fa002cd5deff936fc4ee209095821aeb43e8c86db1e97, summary-d770f65c8afd04282b85978eb23601f8a656ea006cdc74f81f24a73424a028ad, summary-ff90b4f67978898be9440a90c63eecf2ffec69d7e61469b266c1606638477e08
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    5e3e4af1bafaf6d7e9279a7eebf079f0575063e4ca60dc85a17a60b60ba1a632
    Summary revision
    summary-495e240098e695e8c9505c650fea3732e61f51cb62ad33899e63489998ed9dec
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    example_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    db58de017cfdce44c772fedd3c95746a61aea77aa3b152b566701eb66748d41d
    Summary revision
    summary-591cfc07e1d56c1859187e8943e41ee6993e7db66b84ebf0e59878fbc8ed19c4
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_synthesis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    ca1d16a1ce66d7f294e0e5cb26c7d1a61baf9a8e0a7a9831914d151e5f1b83dc
    Summary revision
    summary-6bbe1c15a9124e9f17e1849c1aabdd0333e266654645467ff9b951a59e43d93e
    Input summary revisions
    summary-0968f2a0c5b8a7994780c5cc1ad0dd91c8b1187e6198dd0e42a8536cb7ea8856, summary-0a03a7b99182cbc2419f513327342c8da15e4b5c733dcf34418376e7f72bc41e, summary-0fec8e4fbcf7861a5b03e7118af7b3e3a098de97757cd1b825d2a6ad8aff5e05, summary-17c5682ba3fd8ef3d82508bf8ede75edc79c8f52bfa23e017cbb4e5fdf858c39, summary-1db01574914399037d49d5a8aca872ba411277c1cbd9df97297277a250bb2611, summary-2011b1c7c0743bab6259586d2cd73cd131d31201c57dad56f2d88e2d9218571a, summary-25cfd77c54260485f80a3b08375cc5f3572bca67f010747870e9f7b2f7bd51fe, summary-3b6f603dd65eeef5ef7ba2822a836a307a6322b0264916eae45719772271a696, summary-495e240098e695e8c9505c650fea3732e61f51cb62ad33899e63489998ed9dec, summary-591cfc07e1d56c1859187e8943e41ee6993e7db66b84ebf0e59878fbc8ed19c4, summary-7fa2ae481be7d2335b358bb7cc05494ab25a64757fc271e2abd059edf3309b04, summary-c15fca7be697a8d6e389f12376d4f0b1dd8e72260c24fc8954234b6df87e94ef, summary-fec1e532ee75bcef40a5d2c395d91ab028e02bb647652d13701c5e1d28255646
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    b94a1b706405df75c414f0009b631e68bd1858e2c04e606352496f50faf0dbd3
    Summary revision
    summary-7fa2ae481be7d2335b358bb7cc05494ab25a64757fc271e2abd059edf3309b04
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    7be3d110748c0a290eb368b02fd3249db1e3c635e12a6cfb8ab7d9d0798c9590
    Summary revision
    summary-80857a6a56081a336613ec228d04e6c047fd65552acf854e929fac26635d7d12
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    56582544b4b245b385a0444da677c45bf7506f31da8c802eec326810461850a9
    Summary revision
    summary-8c70302b1e61cb11c601299d92a95de9d9b9452a8caeb54612ca08aa9c5ded6a
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    37516e9dfca988e599bff3290bc09f3b25a52e35bc6db7559219a3590ff8b67e
    Summary revision
    summary-8d1b12f34ca0b2a07cc0ad80863e20c8917e065a089cc3f2efdf8cf70aeb9974
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    5a257f2f670bc1e63e0b5b262dc5143bc6bf51d99f13a29da8065b9945a4fbf8
    Summary revision
    summary-9190d3c44572eff5ad1746aaf7af5f6f5df45b1c1937bfe18a5a9dda6f5da35c
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    example_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    d3abb46a5cccae310728e9bc68b0f9ce0ca30afdb4696246498d6d774fbd5a64
    Summary revision
    summary-ac1b3904d941dff0f444e545327f9aca184fb9a03abe7c5a792591ce08d38fa4
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    example_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    c67e631d93507f9f573176d4f24ab75278fe9663ffed111c25aca66302d18587
    Summary revision
    summary-c15fca7be697a8d6e389f12376d4f0b1dd8e72260c24fc8954234b6df87e94ef
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    example_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    b08a42dcdf84dca62e24b79e019c8eb6b8a6f38b7265fa81842c4123cf6050a7
    Summary revision
    summary-cf77d5a10f748b28d279812fe5ac66d29b9a4bdd8b417a8249096457daa10b69
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    ccdae0630bfa5cdc0530de89566f0c49ef7e69bc1a3478d40e40b589d487c81d
    Summary revision
    summary-d04c9ad583f8be40b8d01afcc5a7544f1b5dc86ff2476ab3c706bb7cc9876b68
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    ac5bc4ad43274e388c383f23f47520255aba6427abe9443e31c430eb4f95f298
    Summary revision
    summary-d09be054e254dc7da74fa002cd5deff936fc4ee209095821aeb43e8c86db1e97
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_synthesis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    fa11593e24fd9b6cd3b964f7b0ba6f1a5afd01d92a6bd763a6f7412255be1a40
    Summary revision
    summary-d770f65c8afd04282b85978eb23601f8a656ea006cdc74f81f24a73424a028ad
    Input summary revisions
    summary-2f2b2c5e78607242f6b336d8ed16a630e7d43ef67cd13e1168acb43d78031a63, summary-ac1b3904d941dff0f444e545327f9aca184fb9a03abe7c5a792591ce08d38fa4, summary-cf77d5a10f748b28d279812fe5ac66d29b9a4bdd8b417a8249096457daa10b69, summary-dbd9c67170d4f94bb136433f7178333bb60e69c643b4e382d0ce6f9486cb777b, summary-feb53c3b49239e1e693fd820569030851475d03fa3b8871f88c5cd1ffe0fb2e9
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    example_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    978868e7869dab3175d2c56ed7caacfd6c0b8d64eba38fc271fe6c3fd20ff3ab
    Summary revision
    summary-dbd9c67170d4f94bb136433f7178333bb60e69c643b4e382d0ce6f9486cb777b
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    example_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    ff5834f0b362e3a73cbccaf2f32d58ccce8c24d18a98d807ec443b0f3bf8b529
    Summary revision
    summary-feb53c3b49239e1e693fd820569030851475d03fa3b8871f88c5cd1ffe0fb2e9
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    example_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    afde46f95b7b1773dfd4076e52250e9c6b9397cd0e79e44dc169cf288cf62cc7
    Summary revision
    summary-fec1e532ee75bcef40a5d2c395d91ab028e02bb647652d13701c5e1d28255646
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    18cb5d7ee3ba3d311a7de3837d80bc1994169319b8af0b74cb732353fc24c68c
    Summary revision
    summary-ff90b4f67978898be9440a90c63eecf2ffec69d7e61469b266c1606638477e08
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis

Good at

Small-project edits, lookups and bug fixes are a practical fit with thinking off: it completed nearly all tasks. This supports everyday assistance, not an assumption that it can handle larger projects.

Evidence for this judgment
Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off
Tasks passed15 of 16 (93.8%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Handles passage calculations and strict output requirements well with thinking on: calculations were all correct, and most wording-and-formatting tasks succeeded. The small calculation set does not establish broad mathematical ability.

Evidence for this judgment
Calculating from a passage · Thinking on
Tasks passed7 of 7 (100.0%)
Test coverage7 of 7 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Following exact instructions · Thinking on
Tasks passed19 of 23 (82.6%)
Test coverage23 of 23 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Struggles with

Larger practical tasks were weak in both modes. Do not extrapolate small-edit success to building apps or carrying out longer investigations across files and web pages.

Evidence for this judgment
Larger practical tasks · Thinking on
Average score45.5/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes5 full credit · 0 partial · 6 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Larger practical tasks · Thinking off
Average score27.3/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes3 full credit · 0 partial · 8 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Research-paper answering was extremely poor in both modes. Low answer-matching scores make it a poor choice for extracting dependable answers from papers.

Evidence for this judgment
Reading research papers · Thinking on
Average score12.5/100 · Answer token F1
Test coverage8 of 8 tasks scored
Task outcomes1 full credit · 0 partial · 7 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Reading research papers · Thinking off
Average score0.0/100 · Answer token F1
Test coverage8 of 8 tasks scored
Task outcomes0 full credit · 0 partial · 8 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Keeping source-backed answers correct under challenges or updates was especially weak with thinking off. Thinking improved this substantially, but still left too many failures to trust without checking the source.

Evidence for this judgment
Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking off
Tasks passed1 of 12 (8.3%)
Test coverage12 of 12 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking on
Tasks passed6 of 12 (50.0%)
Test coverage12 of 12 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on8.3% · All-branches pass rate → 50.0% · All-branches pass rate
Paired test coverage12 of 12 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes12 pairs
Score change with thinking on+41.7 score points
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Should you enable thinking?

Leave thinking off for everyday coding: paired tests found no overall success gain, but longer average task time. Enable it for passage calculations and strict output rules, where accuracy improved enough to justify longer waits.

Evidence for this judgment
Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on93.8% · Task pass rate → 93.8% · Task pass rate
Paired test coverage16 of 16 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes16 pairs
Score change with thinking onNo change
Average time change with thinking on2.8 seconds slower
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Calculating from a passage · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on57.1% · Numeric exact-match accuracy → 100.0% · Numeric exact-match accuracy
Paired test coverage7 of 7 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes7 pairs
Score change with thinking on+42.9 score points
Average time change with thinking on1.5 seconds slower
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Following exact instructions · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on60.9% · Strict prompt compliance → 82.6% · Strict prompt compliance
Paired test coverage23 of 23 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes23 pairs
Score change with thinking on+21.7 score points
Average time change with thinking on8.4 seconds slower
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

For puzzles, thinking improved scores without increasing average time. For difficult published math and reasoning problems, it sharply reduced answer quality while taking longer; keep it off there.

Evidence for this judgment
Logic and number puzzles · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on29.6/100 · Mean puzzle credit → 47.9/100 · Mean puzzle credit
Paired test coverage34 of 34 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes34 pairs
Score change with thinking on+18.4 score points
Average time change with thinking on1.3 seconds faster
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Published hard problems · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on46.4/100 · Mean answer credit → 10.9/100 · Mean answer credit
Paired test coverage11 of 11 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes11 pairs
Score change with thinking on-35.4 score points
Average time change with thinking on0.4 seconds slower
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Compared with other models

With thinking off, its score on selected difficult math and reasoning problems leads the other tested medium-sized MoE models by a meaningful margin. This is a relative advantage within that small class comparison; its absolute result remains mixed.

Evidence for this judgment

Published hard problems
Thinking off. Medium · 5–under 20B · MoE (total parameters). Rank 1 of 3 in this recorded comparison.

Published hard problemsThinking off · Medium · 5–under 20B · MoE (total parameters)

Answer selected difficult math and reasoning questions from LiveBench.

Mean answer credit · 0–100 points · higher is better
11 of 11 tasks scored for each model.

Gaps are relative to this model. Treat small gaps cautiously.

  1. #1 Ling 3.0 Tiny Q4_07.9B total parameters46.4/100
    This model
  2. #2 Gemma 4 19B-A4B REAP18.4B total parameters30.7/100
    15.7 points lower
  3. #3 Mellum 2.1 12B-A2.5B Thinking12.1B total parameters30.0/100
    16.3 points lower

Other mode, this model only: thinking on · 10.9/100 · Mean answer credit.

How this comparison works

Average credit per task; partly correct results can earn partial credit. Family comparisons show the labeled Instruct and reasoning versions. Other peer comparisons use the same requested thinking setting, not necessarily each model’s best mode. Small differences on these short tests may not hold on other tasks. Peer membership varies by test coverage and compatible settings.

MoE models use only part of their parameters for each token. This group uses total size; active counts are not included in this saved comparison.

Comparison saved with the 2026-10-12 assessment. Task-specific results.

On this test machine, thinking-off small coding combines near-complete success with shorter median task time than equally successful Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M and the slightly less successful alternatives. For thinking-on passage calculations, it ties the highest accuracy and has the shortest median task time in the matched cohort, including against equally accurate models. These are useful task-specific responsiveness advantages.

Evidence for this judgment

Speed: Everyday coding tasks
Thinking off. Matching test-machine label and execution settings; spans model sizes. Timings include unsuccessful tasks, so read them alongside quality.

Speed: Calculating from a passage
Thinking on. Matching test-machine label and execution settings; spans model sizes. Timings include unsuccessful tasks, so read them alongside quality.

Speed and task success: Everyday coding tasksThinking off · Matching test-machine label and settings · Across model sizes

Shorter task time is better only when the result is useful. These times include failures, tools and grading. Token generation speed measures a different part of the work.

Compare timings and outcomes
ModelTypical task timeGeneration speedTasks passed
LFM2.5 1.2B Q4_01.4 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed296.5 tokens/s2 of 1616 of 16 scored
Phi-4 Mini Instruct 3.8B Q4_K_M3.9 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed102.8 tokens/s0 of 1616 of 16 scored
SmolLM3 3B Q4_K_M4.5 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed117.2 tokens/s3 of 1616 of 16 scored
Granite 4.0 Micro 3.4B Q4_05.6 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed107.8 tokens/s4 of 1616 of 16 scored
Qwen3.5 0.8B Q4_05.7 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed236.1 tokens/s6 of 1616 of 16 scored
Ling 3.0 Tiny Q4_0This model5.8 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed122.4 tokens/s15 of 1616 of 16 scored
Qwen2.5 Coder 7B Instruct Q4_K_M6.8 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed66.5 tokens/s0 of 1616 of 16 scored
Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M6.9 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed54.4 tokens/s15 of 1616 of 16 scored
Mellum 2.1 12B-A2.5B Thinking7.5 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed135.9 tokens/s14 of 1616 of 16 scored
Ministral 3 8B Instruct Q4_K_M8.6 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed54.7 tokens/s12 of 1616 of 16 scored
Nemotron Nano 9B v2 Q4_08.9 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed52.9 tokens/s6 of 1616 of 16 scored
Granite 4.2 8B Q4_09.2 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed53.2 tokens/s14 of 1616 of 16 scored
Gemma 4 12B QAT Q4_013.3 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed35.2 tokens/s13 of 1616 of 16 scored

Results from this test setup, not a promise for your computer. Hardware, software, tokenizers and answer length can change the ordering. Historical runtime builds were not always captured. Comparison saved with the 2026-10-12 assessment.

Test machine: AMD Ryzen 5 5600X (6 cores / 12 threads) · AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT (12 GB VRAM) · 32 GB or 128 GB system RAM, never mixed in one timing group. Full test machine details

Speed and task success: Calculating from a passageThinking on · Matching test-machine label and settings · Across model sizes

Shorter task time is better only when the result is useful. These times include failures, tools and grading. Token generation speed measures a different part of the work.

Compare timings and outcomes
ModelTypical task timeGeneration speedTasks passed
Ling 3.0 Tiny Q4_0This model1.5 seconds7 of 7 tasks timed138.4 tokens/s7 of 77 of 7 scored
Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M3.0 seconds7 of 7 tasks timed54.7 tokens/s6 of 77 of 7 scored
SmolLM3 3B Q4_K_M3.5 seconds7 of 7 tasks timed121.9 tokens/s5 of 77 of 7 scored
Mellum 2.1 12B-A2.5B Thinking3.7 seconds7 of 7 tasks timed143.5 tokens/s7 of 77 of 7 scored
LFM2.5 1.2B Thinking Q4_K_M4.4 seconds7 of 7 tasks timed300.3 tokens/s4 of 77 of 7 scored
Nemotron Nano 9B v2 Q4_06.0 seconds7 of 7 tasks timed53.8 tokens/s6 of 77 of 7 scored
Gemma 4 12B QAT Q4_010.9 seconds7 of 7 tasks timed37.1 tokens/s6 of 77 of 7 scored
Ministral 3 14B Reasoning 2512 Q4_K_M14.6 seconds7 of 7 tasks timed35.6 tokens/s7 of 77 of 7 scored
Granite 4.2 8B Q4_018.9 seconds7 of 7 tasks timed56.1 tokens/s6 of 77 of 7 scored
Ministral 3 8B Reasoning 2512 Q4_K_M40.1 seconds7 of 7 tasks timed53.5 tokens/s7 of 77 of 7 scored

Results from this test setup, not a promise for your computer. Hardware, software, tokenizers and answer length can change the ordering. Historical runtime builds were not always captured. Comparison saved with the 2026-10-12 assessment.

Test machine: AMD Ryzen 5 5600X (6 cores / 12 threads) · AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT (12 GB VRAM) · 32 GB or 128 GB system RAM, never mixed in one timing group. Full test machine details

Worth knowing

Publication redactions and withheld artifacts limit how much of the example evidence readers can inspect.

Evidence for this judgment

Source limitation
Some selected evidence has recorded publication redactions.

How to interpret these assessments and their limitations →

One weight format is recorded for this model. Additional tested formats will appear here when available.

Thinking tradeoff

16/16 matched scored questions · 16/16 matched timed questions

Thinking offMean matched task credit93.8%
Thinking onMean matched task credit93.8%

Thinking on took 2.8 seconds more per matched timed question, on average.

All matched quality and timing measurements
Matched measurementRecorded result
Average credit, off → on93.8% → 93.8%
Mean paired credit change0.0 percentage points
Question outcomes1 improved · 14 unchanged · 1 worse
Mean added task time+2.8s
Mean task time, off → on7.6s → 10.4s
Median task time, off → on5.8s → 8.4s
Median of paired time changes+1.9s
Total added task time+44.8s
Ratio of summed times, on / off1.4×

Quality and timing can cover different subsets. Median paired change is calculated per question; it is not the difference between the two medians. Task time includes tools and grading.

Inspect the matched modes and their answers →
Inspect individual matched questions

Sampled repetitions

Repeated runs are a separate experiment and never add votes to the baseline score.

Thinking on · temperature 0.6

48/48 repeats scored · 44 full-credit repeats.

16/16 questions have every planned repeat scored. Of those, 13 earned full credit on every repeat.

Recorded repetition conditions
  • Seed 303 · requested on · verified
  • Seed 101 · requested on · verified
  • Seed 202 · requested on · verified

Everyday coding tasks: recorded outcomes

Find information in a small project, edit files and fix bugs.

15 full credit1 failed to finish

Each segment counts tasks, not credit points. Partial credit varies by task.

Scoring and fixed question bank →

This model’s answers, code and tool activity

Select a question to read the original answer, tool calls and available code changes for this configuration and thinking setting.

1–16 of 16 matching questions · 16 in this version

  • Locate the Retry Limit

    The user asks where the project's retry-limit setting is defined and what value it holds. This exercises locating a named setting in code and reporting both its location and value.

    basic-T1 · primary
  • Find the Release Date

    The user asks for the release date mentioned in a project notes document. This exercises reading a specified file and extracting a particular fact rather than guessing from outside knowledge.

    basic-T2 · primary
  • Change the Retry Limit

    The user asks to change the project's retry limit to a specified value. This exercises finding the relevant setting and making a focused code edit rather than merely describing the change.

    basic-T3 · primary
  • Create an Exact One-Line File

    The user asks to create a text file containing exactly one supplied line. This exercises basic file creation and precise instruction following, including avoiding extra text in the file.

    basic-T4 · primary
  • Explain the Latest Commit

    The user asks what the most recent Git commit changed in the project. This exercises inspecting recorded changes and turning them into a clear explanation of what was modified.

    basic-T5 · primary
  • Count and Compare Python Files

    The user asks how many Python files are in the application folder and which is largest. This exercises identifying relevant files, counting them, and comparing their sizes.

    basic-T6 · primary
  • Add Readable Byte Sizes

    The user asks to add a function that converts byte counts into readable sizes and remove the related TODO comment. This exercises implementing a small utility and updating the surrounding code consistently.

    basic-T7 · primary
  • Collect TODO Comments

    The user asks to find every TODO comment in the Python code and append each to the project's task list on a separate line. This combines searching across files with collecting text into an existing document.

    basic-T8 · primary
  • Fix Code Behind a Failing Test

    The user asks to investigate a failing test and fix the application code without changing the test. This exercises diagnosing a bug while respecting an explicit limit on what may be edited.

    basic-H1 · primary
  • Rename a Function Throughout

    The user asks to rename a network function and update every place in the project that uses it. This exercises tracking references across files and making a coordinated change rather than editing only the definition.

    basic-H2 · primary
  • Find the Proxy Settings

    The user asks to find a proxy configuration file somewhere under the project's parent folder and report its host and port. This exercises searching beyond the project folder and reading configuration values.

    basic-H3 · primary
  • Locate an Error in a Log

    The user asks which error code appears in a long event log and on which line. This exercises finding a specific entry in a large file and reporting its precise location.

    basic-H4 · primary
  • Append a Final Task

    The user asks to append a supplied release-related task as the final line of an existing task list. This exercises preserving existing content while adding exact text in the requested position.

    basic-H5 · primary
  • Calculate Total Retry Waiting

    The user asks for the total time a network function spends sleeping when all attempts fail, worked out from the code. This exercises following retry logic and adding the delays along that failure path.

    basic-H6 · primary
  • Document Every Command-Line Option

    The user asks for a project readme listing every command-line option with its help text. This exercises discovering the program's available options and transferring that information into complete, source-grounded documentation.

    basic-H7 · primary
  • Undo a Commit by Editing

    The user asks to undo the latest Git commit's change by editing the file directly, without using Git to make changes. This exercises understanding a previous edit and reversing it under a method constraint.

    basic-H8 · primary
Filters change this list, not the fixed scoring denominator. Search currently covers question IDs, titles and available task explanations. Focus a control to load prompt/outcome search where this edition provides it.

Suggested comparisons

These are starting points for inspection, not claims that one setup is better. Runtime and placement differences remain visible.

Thinking on versus off

Verified requested on/off conditions of the same configuration, matched on the recorded test protocol.

Requested thinking off · Complete compared coverage

Compare these configurations →

Selection rule and evidence IDsPolicy comparisons-v3 · Template verified-thinking-pair
Facts: paired-0faeb7fa99498aab6ad7a033
Matching candidate set: paired-0faeb7fa99498aab6ad7a033

Mellum 2.1 12B-A2.5B Thinking Q4_K_M

Another checkpoint in the same total-parameter band and architecture category, with matching task controls.

Requested thinking on · Complete compared coverage

Compare these configurations →

Selection rule and evidence IDsPolicy comparisons-v3 · Template same-parameter-architecture-matching-controls
Facts: fact-c21afbe6b4a1c545a76f06e3, fact-8b80445a65ddd8533aada5d1
Matching candidate set: fact-8b80445a65ddd8533aada5d1, fact-5e6df84ce2410393f88a0888, fact-9c1b20398306f73bbeec6523, fact-578336becdb665a42e2d9bbc, fact-525d7f6e9f37b5cb8bf1d50e, fact-46c00afeef425585a5ec6dfa

Tested weights

Q4_0 · 4.62 GB

bartowski · recorded source

Ling-3.0-tiny-Q4_0.gguf · Exact GGUF file →Historical first-MiB hash only; not a full-file identity.

Explore the answers

Choose a suite to inspect its exact available questions, references and model answers.